New South Western franchise: Awarded to First/MTR

[Robertj21a]

First seem to be quite bad at running buses in the UK; the figures show that they make very little money, while Stagecoach have quite healthy profits. It's not too surprising, therefore, that they have different attitudes to losing bus routes...

First has had massive financial problems ever since Lockhead was in charge. Even now, many years later, they're still struggling.

Stagecoach has had a stable, astute, management throughout.......

 

[HH]

First has had massive financial problems ever since Lockhead was in charge. Even now, many years later, they're still struggling.

Stagecoach has had a stable, astute, management throughout.......

Lockhead was part of the problem; he had some very fixed ideas about how the business should be run. I'm surprised that, now that he's gone, they haven't made any progress. Clearly there is some dead wood at the top.

 

[coppercapped]

Correct. SWT did a truely great job improving their reliability but it was a job that shouldn't have needed doing. Poor design, poor build quality. Consign them to the scrapheap.

SWT also improved the reliability of all the other train fleets they used. The 458s were not an exception.

 

[Robertj21a]

Lockhead was part of the problem; he had some very fixed ideas about how the business should be run. I'm surprised that, now that he's gone, they haven't made any progress. Clearly there is some dead wood at the top.

Slight correction. Lockhead was most of the problem, engineers don't necessarily make good accountants.
The size of the financial problems, after their purchases in the USA, will have been a massive weight on the shoulders of anyone trying to sort out the mess.

 

[PhilipW]

Can anyone explain how the new franchise intends to reduce the journey time to Southampton by 8 minutes ? I just don't see it.

The slowest part of the London bound journey is the regular 15 min crawl from about Earlsfield into Waterloo which often includes being brought to a standstill outside Clapham Junction. This seems just as likely to happen off peak as it does in the peak.

Nobody, so far, has been able to resolve this so I very much doubt if the new franchise can either.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Can anyone explain how the new franchise intends to reduce the journey time to Southampton by 8 minutes ? I just don't see it.

The slowest part of the London bound journey is the regular 15 min crawl from about Earlsfield into Waterloo which often includes being brought to a standstill outside Clapham Junction. This seems just as likely to happen off peak as it does in the peak.

Nobody, so far, has been able to resolve this so I very much doubt if the new franchise can either.

There is a lot of slack time currently in the timetable. The trains used to run faster under BR. Not only that but the Waterloo capacity improvements that are in progress and should help with that crawl into Waterloo.

 

[Matt Taylor]

The crawl into Waterloo as you say is almost entirely a result of the haphazard calling pattern from Woking where half of the traffic on the fast stops at Clapham and half doesn't. For example the XX21 from Woking runs fast to Waterloo but is timed to approach Clapham just two minutes behind the XX17 West Of England that calls at Clapham which is just completely unrealistic.

 

[Carlisle]

There is a lot of slack time currently in the timetable. The trains used to run faster under BR. Not only that but the Waterloo capacity improvements that are in progress and should help with that crawl into Waterloo.

I seem to remember fast from Southampton to Waterloo was about 1hr 7mins in BR times on the 442s

 

[HH]

There is a helluva lot of slack time currently in the timetable.

Corrected.

It's why SWT appear to be good at performance. People are so easily taken in...

 

[abn444]

Corrected.

It's why SWT appear to be good at performance. People are so easily taken in...

I'd rather there was slack in the timetable and the train actually turns up when it is supposed to rather than not be and the train turns up late at the slightest "hiccup".

 

[BestWestern]

Corrected.

It's why SWT appear to be good at performance. People are so easily taken in...

GWR also have plenty of padding on some of their runs. It isn't exclusive to SWT!

 

[HH]

I'd rather there was slack in the timetable and the train actually turns up when it is supposed to rather than not be and the train turns up late at the slightest "hiccup".

There always has to be some padding, but SWT started the trend to take it to much higher levels; others have jumped on the bandwagon since. To be fair, some of it is there to maintain a regular clock-face timetable.

So what we have is some services taking maybe 10 minutes longer than they should, so that other trains, at a different time, might avoid being late say 10% of the time. I'm not convinced that's a good trade-off for the travelling public, despite what you claim.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

I'd rather there was slack in the timetable and the train actually turns up when it is supposed to rather than not be and the train turns up late at the slightest "hiccup".

There's difference between a little bit of time in for operational needs and the excessive amount in the timetables today.and Carlisle is more or less right the timings for a REP & TC were better than today by about 5 mins, 1hr 02, I can remember it being done quite often in 1hr dead, but it didn't used to call at Woking or Winchester, those calls being added for political reasons, like many stops.

 

[Goldfish62]

Corrected.

It's why SWT appear to be good at performance. People are so easily taken in...

Except they're not actually a good performer, are they? Look at the PPM. Punctuality constantly floating around where they'd need to apply season ticket discounts. They only avoided it over the past year by increasing the number of void days way above their usual number.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Deleted

 

[HH]

There's difference between a little bit of time in for operational needs and the excessive amount in the timetables today.and Carlisle is more or less right the timings for a REP & TC were better than today by about 5 mins, 1hr 02, I can remember it being done quite often in 1hr dead, but it didn't used to call at Woking or Winchester, those calls being added for political reasons, like many stops.

This is very true; there's also the fact that DfT tend to specify that (in effect) there will be nothing lost at each timetable change, i.e. that stations will all get at least the same number of stops, first and last trains and frequency of service, even where usage goes down or where there was no good reason for them being there in the first place*. Over time this has a negative effect on the whole timetable.

* One particular idiocy is related to former early morning ECS (empty) moves that TOCs changed into services; those moves may no longer be necessary, e.g. if the stock is now maintained at a different location, but the service now has to be run even though it might only be carrying a couple of passengers.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

True, DaFT do set the calls not the TOC operator, but those calls are very much politically motivated.

One thing I'd like to know is how do they propose to run extra services from Portsmouth to Weymouth when the power supply struggles with the existing service levels?

 

[HH]

Except they're not actually a good performer, are they? Look at the PPM. Punctuality constantly floating around where they'd need to apply season ticket discounts. They only avoided it over the past year by increasing the number of void days way above their usual number.

PPM shows both their own and NR performance; it has been bad over roughly the past year and particularly bad in Period 9; did they have a bad leaf fall, or was it something else?

P.S. Imagine how bad their performance might have been without the padding!

 

[yorksrob]

One of the ironies of the modern railway system must be that there's money to burn for replacing brand new trains, yet seemingly nothing available for providing much needed additional capacity west of Salisbury.

 

[southern442]

Would stories of £65 million being spent for absolutely nothing usually make the news? If so why hasn't it yet, and why aren't more people complaining to the DfT?

I know I'm late but this monumental balls-up seems like some sort of April Fool's joke. What genuine reason do they have to get rid of all these units?

 

[swt_passenger]

True, DaFT do set the calls not the TOC operator, but those calls are very much politically motivated.

One thing I'd like to know is how do they propose to run extra services from Portsmouth to Weymouth when the power supply struggles with the existing service levels?

The service spec spreadsheet with the ITT suggests it could be a replacement, not an extra. Possible that the Poole Stopper will not run west of Southampton, and one of the 2 tph Weymouth's will then be cut back to Poole. That's just my interpretation of the specification, but it is definitely written to allow for it.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

If they're serious about things West of Poole, then they need to do a power upgrade and redouble the single line section between Moreton & Dorchester South as that's biggest of the Weymouth lines Achilles Heels.

Doing both will make the line much better for capacity and resilience and TBQH the electrification was done on the cheapest budget that BR could afford to do and it shows.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

If they're serious about things West of Poole, then they need to do a power upgrade and redouble the single line section between Moreton & Dorchester South as that's biggest of the Weymouth lines Achilles Heels.

Doing both will make the line much better for capacity and resilience and TBQH the electrification was done on the cheapest budget that BR could afford to do and it shows.

As the 707s start to come into service (until their replacement enters service), freeing up units, could a 450 be freed up to free up the 159 that's used on the Lymington branch to operate the Portsmouth-Weymouth service?

How big a difference in cost would there be (in both cases with the single line section redoubled) between upgrading the 3rd power supply to be able to handle (in theory) 4tph to Weymouth or converting Poole-Weymouth to OLE?

 

[swt_passenger]

As the 707s start to come into service (until their replacement enters service), freeing up units, could a 450 be freed up to free up the 159 that's used on the Lymington branch to operate the Portsmouth-Weymouth service?

The Lymington branch DMU is a single 158, how the heck could one unit on its own possibly help with running a Portsmouth to Weymouth hourly service?

You need three units just for the present Portsmouth to Southampton service. Portsmouth to Weymouth hourly would need 6 or maybe even 7 units.

If the Portsmouth to Weymouth service is a replacement for an existing service then questions about the power supply are irrelevant.

 

[southern442]

The Lymington branch DMU is a single 158, how the heck could one unit on its own possibly help with running a Portsmouth to Weymouth hourly service?

You need three units just for the present Portsmouth to Southampton service. Portsmouth to Weymouth hourly would need 6 or maybe even 7 units.

If the Portsmouth to Weymouth service is a replacement for an existing service then questions about the power supply are irrelevant.

Would the Portsmouth to Weymouth replacing a London to Weymouth have any negative effects for travellers west of Poole? I'm sort of envisioning a potential situation where an hourly train to London would be horribly overcrowded for most of its length, particularly in the summer. They wouldn't be able to convince people to get off at Poole to give the other train some love.

Although saying that, they can't be that well used west of Poole, and I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem. It's just that there is potential for a Redhill-type situation to arise here.

 

[swt_passenger]

Would the Portsmouth to Weymouth replacing a London to Weymouth have any negative effects for travellers west of Poole? I'm sort of envisioning a potential situation where an hourly train to London would be horribly overcrowded for most of its length, particularly in the summer. They wouldn't be able to convince people to get off at Poole to give the other train some love.

Although saying that, they can't be that well used west of Poole, and I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem. It's just that there is potential for a Redhill-type situation to arise here.

I don't know exactly how people use the trains in the Poole to Weymouth area, previously people have said that long distance travellers tend to go for the fast service off Weymouth, because they aren't clock face.

My posts on this subject are based purely on the spreadsheet service pattern provided with the ITT, and I'm not recommending anything. Certainly splitting the existing Poole stopper at Southampton wouldn't impact on many travellers, whenever I use it into Southampton in the down direction nearly everyone gets off there, it could just as well start again as a separately advertised service after its 20 minute layover there.

 

[Dr_Intoxicated]

I'd rather there was slack in the timetable and the train actually turns up when it is supposed to rather than not be and the train turns up late at the slightest "hiccup".

I really agree with this, however when SWT first introduced the extra padding several years ago I was really annoyed, especially when the train sat at a station, off peak waiting for the departure time to tick past.

However I have come to appreciate being able to arrange to meet someone with a reasonable expectation of being on time.

 

[47802]

Would stories of £65 million being spent for absolutely nothing usually make the news? If so why hasn't it yet, and why aren't more people complaining to the DfT?

I know I'm late but this monumental balls-up seems like some sort of April Fool's joke. What genuine reason do they have to get rid of all these units?

Well firstly we don't actually have the full info in the public domain yet and will presumably have to wait to the end of the standstill period.

Secondly why is it a monumental balls-up First have presented a business proposition to run the SWT franchise, and the DFT have accepted that proposition as the best option, the fact that it may not include some new trains ordered by the franchise or the only recently extensively rebuilt 458's is frankly irrelevant.

Yes from a PR perspective it may not look good and it will interesting to see any First and DFT spin on this and what happens to these trains in the longer term, but then the same applies to Anglia franchise to some degree getting rid of relatively young 379 and 360's, but there are currently plenty of manufacturers who can churn out bog standard short to medium distance EMU's so if they can get a good deal on substancial or complete fleet replacement rather than just replacing the older units alone it probably makes a lot of sense from the TOC's perspective.

 

[Robertj21a]

I'd rather there was slack in the timetable and the train actually turns up when it is supposed to rather than not be and the train turns up late at the slightest "hiccup".

Totally agree. It's quite common with a number of TOCs and, increasingly, with a number of bus companies too. At least you can then have greater confidence in the times quoted.

 

[swt_passenger]

Secondly why is it a monumental balls-up First have presented a business proposition to run the SWT franchise, and the DFT have accepted that proposition as the best option, the fact that it may not include some new trains ordered by the franchise or the only recently extensively rebuilt 458's is frankly irrelevant.

Fair point, we do seem to have a lot more criticism of this compared to the Anglia total fleet replacement. Isn't there a redundant 321 upgrade programme taking place now as a result of that?